Surely - surely - you know by now that A-Rod has reportedly tested positive for two types of steroids. And I know that A-Rod is not an Astro, but today's reports are troubling for a variety of reasons.
There was just a lot made about A-Rod's softball interview with Katie Couric last December where he flat denied taking steroids. How could he say that, when he may have taken steroids? Maybe because nobody was supposed to know the results of those tests in 2003.
That's right, those tests were supposed to be anonymous. And there's something going on with Blogger right now that I can't link to it, but the address is http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2003/baseball/mlb/11/13/mlb.steroids.ap.index.html
The reason the tests took place in 2003 was to determine if steroid use was rampant enough to warrant mandatory testing. So 1438 "anonymous tests" took place in 2003, and between 5%-7% tested positive. What's troubling - and what should be troubling to those 1438 players - is that, all of a sudden, names have been put to numbers.
So when Katie Couric lobs questions underhand to A-Rod, he thinks he can say - without fear of reprisal - that no, he did not take steroids. Because who's going to put it together? It's anonymous.
1438 players to be tested is a lot. Especially when you consider that there are 750 Major League roster spots (25 x 30). Apparently there were 104 of those players who tested positive. So what it looks like may happen is that we'll have 103 (counting the BALCO guys) more Special Reports on the MLB Network.
I welcome this, and I dread this.
So the question, Dear Citizen, is this: Which player's positive report would destroy your faith in baseball?
We didn't come out here to play tiddlywinks, son.
-Hal Smith
